FX vs. DX

Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
IMHO: DX is now at the level of FX

Exept for high iso-performance and better viewfinder, if you need that ?

Yes, shallower DOF is better for some pictures, but for landscapes the deeper DOF is better.

And I really like the lighter bodies.

Both Ken Rockwell and Lloyd Chambers now have changed their minds about this - because of the fine development in DX.

http://diglloyd.com/

The blog from 130713:

"Image quality in APS-C cameras is now at an impressive level."

Also a test here from Ken R.:


http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/2013-04-09-dslrs/index.htm
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,476
Location
Lompoc, CA
There is a lot to like about DX. Unfortunately the lack of wide angle lens options, e.g. small, light primes and tilt-shift means I can't really capitalize on it's advantages. It also makes me think Nikon isn't serious about DX for "serious" photographers going forward. I still use (and love) my DX2 for telephoto applications, but I've reluctantly moved to FX for everything else.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
Yes, tilt-shift, I agree (but not many who use it) but you can use FX-lenses on DX - yes expensive, but you still get the benefit of lighter bodies and less expensive, and you get the same IQ, sometimes even better, because sometimes it "cut" the week corners on FX.

Agree 14-24 is 21mm, if you need 14mm and my 24 1.4G is a 36mm, but as I see it = It is better on a good DX, than Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is on FX.

Agree Nikon could make better DX-lenses, but Tokina 11-16 comes close.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
I have compared Nikon 10,5 and Nikon 16mm (FX) and as I see it (and it looks like Bjørn Rørslett agree in his test) the 10,5 is a tiny bit better, and it can focus much closer than the 16mm FX

Both 10,5 mm with D7000

6741732175_67ba53a9d8_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)







7183915490_3b639295a7_k.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




Added: Nikon 24mm f/1.4G on D7000



7212386554_674ca83cb7_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
124
Location
Houston
I think it's more like comparing a screwdriver to an allen wrench. Two different tools for two different screws.

DX > FX for things where DoF is important like landscapes and macros, or when more reach is needed such as in sports.

I still believe FX is superior in portrait photography where shallower depth of field is favored, and wide angles are preferred. Still not on the level of medium format, but still better than DX.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
As mentioned if you need about 14mm and think this is very important for you, then you are right, and you can not live with 21mm as the best widest from Nikon or the tiny bit difference from Tokina 11-16 compared with the 14-24 (and no filter, unless you pay a premium to get a certain holder)

About portraits I would have agreed years ago, but not anymore, the difference is there but it is so minor.

There was a test about the difference betw. using f. 1.4, f. 2.0 and f.2.8 bokeh wise and the better sharpness a bit stopped down, and the result was, that (on full frame) you got the best result with f. 2.8.

Yes, the bokeh was a bit better wide open, but the sharpness suffered also a bit, so you got the best result/balance at f. 2.8

I can look for the test, and send it here, if I can find it, if you are interested ?

If you only go for the best bokeh I agree.

----

"I think it's more like comparing a screwdriver to an allen wrench"

I certainly NOT agree here (today !! some years ago I would agree), and I have shot a lot with both formats - from D700 to D3x and about nearly all the DX-cameras started with D70S = Today, there are those small differencies mentioned, and if you wil pay A LOT more and have a much heavier body for those differencies = OK, but I will say that this comparison is apples compared to apples = Some are a tiny bit sweeter, some have advantages some have disadvantages, but those comarisons/differencies are small .....and then you choose.

When on an assignments I have 4-5 bodies with me - FX and DX-bodies (and Oly E-M5 with 75mm f/1.8, it is close in quality to a very pro and expensive Nikon lens), because I like primes more (they are often better and much lighter = earlier i had the "holy trinity" = 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200VR) and I do not want to change lenses, so it is easier/faster to pic another camera, than changing lenses, therefore I have compared a lot.

And Yes I got a tiny bit better bokeh from the D3x.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
124
Location
Houston
If you only go for the best bokeh I agree.

...but isn't that the whole point? DX is more than "good enough" for portraits IMO (I carry a FX as primary, with a DX secondary on my shoots), but the reason why people spend $2k on a lens, that a lens costing 10% can capture, for differences (i.e. DoF, sharpness, bokeh...) is because of these slight differences.

The average person viewing these pictures may not be able to pin point exactly what these differences are, but in most cases they will be able to see the difference. Seeing these differences are usually easier to be spotted by professionals and advanced amateurs.

Again, I wouldn't go as far to say that FX = DX, they're just 2 different tools. One has better uses for one job, where the other is better used for others.

Edit: Perhaps the one place I would agree that DX = FX would be in studio.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
It would be the whole point years ago, but not anymore.

Yes there is better bokeh with the widest aperture, but as mentioned I said "yes" to the mentioned test = At the widest aperture at FX there was better bokeh, but the sharpness suffered a bit (of course we do not need premium sharpness in a portrait all the time, do not get me wrong here, but I like sharp eyes), and therefore the resume/result was with FX and bokeh and portraits = Stop a bit down.

I said "yes" to this test, but of course you do not have to agree.

It is an old test, and not sure I can find it, but I will try if you you are interested ?

But today with the fine DX quality I would say - you do not need to stop down at FX to get the eyes really sharp, just use DX

...And then you instead can use DX
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
Sorry can not find it, but the button line is (and of course you do not have to agree), that the test showed (about portraits), that even you miss a tiny bit in bokeh stopped a bit down, you gained the needed sharpness in the portraits (again of course we do not need the very best sharpness in portraits = Would often be f. 5.6)

If you only photograph for bokeh = go for the FX and the lens that can deliver it.

E.g.: I sold my Nikon 85 f. 1.4 D to finanse my D3x = Have I regret that = Yes and yes ;) - but on D700 I never used f. 1.4 shooting portraits, I went to F. 2.0 to get the needed sharpness in eyes, and the bokeh was still amazing.

One night I shoot only bokeh - going for the night scenes/the lights (not portraits) and f. 1.4 was best.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
See also

https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=362535&page=4


#32

----

My button line is: The new development has changed the game, exept for the minor differencies mentioned.

At least for now


Perhaps a D4X or what they will call it, or another development in FX will change it back - and later again DX will change it back again, but just now......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
6,460
Location
Chicago "burbs"
I always liked DX for wildlife because of the crop factor. Now that they're cramming in more mp, I'm not only liking DX, I'm loving DX. BTW, s/n improvements as well as DR are nice added extras to be sure. Example, if I use the 1.3 crop on my D7100, the overall crop factor is 2x. Put that on my 400 VR and I've got an 800mm F/2.8 VR without a TC! Not too shabby.
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,476
Location
Lompoc, CA
Yes, tilt-shift, I agree (but not many who use it) but you can use FX-lenses on DX - yes expensive, but you still get the benefit of lighter bodies and less expensive, and you get the same IQ, sometimes even better, because sometimes it "cut" the week corners on FX.

Agree 14-24 is 21mm, if you need 14mm and my 24 1.4G is a 36mm, but as I see it = It is better on a good DX, than Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is on FX.

Agree Nikon could make better DX-lenses, but Tokina 11-16 comes close.

I actually used the 14-24 on my DX cameras for years, along with the 12-24 f/4. It was great, when 14mm was wide enough and size and weight weren't an issue and I could keep the sun out of the frame. But I would much prefer carrying a DX equivalent of the 20 or 24 mm primes.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
I always liked DX for wildlife because of the crop factor. Now that they're cramming in more mp, I'm not only liking DX, I'm loving DX. BTW, s/n improvements as well as DR are nice added extras to be sure. Example, if I use the 1.3 crop on my D7100, the overall crop factor is 2x. Put that on my 400 VR and I've got an 800mm F/2.8 VR without a TC! Not too shabby.

Perhaps I should send this informations to one of my friends who is a birder, but he declined the D7100 because of the buffer, but if you use the 1,3 and not NEF, but jpg. fine, then....... I think the buffer is OK ?

He was also afraid that there were problems with his long lenses, as there were with D7000, but I can understand, that this is solved.

So he stayed with his D300s and waiting for the D400.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
I actually used the 14-24 on my DX cameras for years, along with the 12-24 f/4. It was great, when 14mm was wide enough and size and weight weren't an issue and I could keep the sun out of the frame. But I would much prefer carrying a DX equivalent of the 20 or 24 mm primes.

Yes - I have had both.

I do not know why - have never tryed it - but it looks like the Nikon 10-24 is not good enough compared to the 14-24 = It is seldom you read about some users, and it seems as the 14-24 is not only better, but way better.


Thom Hogan has many times complained about Nikons line of DX-lenses - as I recall most complained about the wide end, but he recommend the Tokina 11-16 (I had it, and it was really fine, but then - at that time - I went FX and sold it and used the 14-24)
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
6,460
Location
Chicago "burbs"
Perhaps I should send this informations to one of my friends who is a birder, but he declined the D7100 because of the buffer, but if you use the 1,3 and not NEF, but jpg. fine, then....... I think the buffer is OK ?

He was also afraid that there were problems with his long lenses, as there were with D7000, but I can understand, that this is solved.

So he stayed with his D300s and waiting for the D400.
In raw (nef) I get 6 immediate shots before the buffer slows down. That's enough for me for now for birds. If/when the D400 comes available, the D7100 goes to my daughter, and I'll buy the D400 assuming it's what I want.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
In raw (nef) I get 6 immediate shots before the buffer slows down. That's enough for me for now for birds. If/when the D400 comes available, the D7100 goes to my daughter, and I'll buy the D400 assuming it's what I want.

OK, thanks
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom